3.9 Article

Advanced REACH Tool (ART): Overview of Version 1.0 and Research Needs

期刊

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 949-956

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mer094

关键词

Bayesian analysis; exposure modelling; uncertainty

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment
  2. UK Health and Safety Executive
  3. French agency for environmental and occupational health safety (Afsset)
  4. Cefic LRI
  5. SHELL
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Eurometaux
  8. British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper provides an outline of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) version 1.0 and a discussion of how it could be further developed. ART is a higher tier exposure assessment tool that combines mechanistically modelled inhalation exposure predictions with available exposure data using a Bayesian approach. ART assesses exposure for scenarios across different plants and sites. Estimates are provided for different percentiles of the exposure distribution and confidence intervals around the estimate. It also produces exposure estimates in the absence of data, but uncertainty of the estimates will decrease when results of exposure measurements are included. The tool has been calibrated using a broad range of exposure data and provides estimates for exposure to vapours, mists, and dusts. ART has a robust and stable conceptual basis but will be refined in the future and should therefore be considered an evolving system. High-priority areas for future research are identified in this paper and include the integration of partially analogous measurement series, inclusion of company and site-specific assessments, user decision strategies linked to ART predictions, evaluation of validity and reliability of ART, exploring the possibilities for incorporating the dermal route and integration of ART predictions with tools for modelling internal dose. ART is initially developed in the scope of REACH but is equally useful for exposure assessment in other areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据